Russia is now China's biggest oil partner — and it's a huge problem for Saudi Arabia

"If Saudi Arabia wants to recapture its number one ranking, it needs to accept the renminbi for oil payments instead of just the dollar," Gordon Kwan, the Hong Kong-based head of regional oil and gas research

The dollar hasn't even been the primary currency for trading oil for years. Don't be fucking stupid, the petrodollar has been dead a long time and Saddam and Gaddafi had nothing to do with their switch off the petrodollar.

Do you know why they wanted to stop trading in dollars? Because the USA wouldn't allow them to use the dollars due to sanctions.

The (petro)dollar must remain powerful enough to remain the world's reserve currency. If it doesn't America's economy could potentially collapse and then it would be forced to spread Freedom to recapture its status.

Actually the role of the petrodollar and its significance for the US economy are grossly exaggerated. Usually by uninformed people who have no knowledge of the matter. The US will not collapse without the petrodollar. Not even close. Not even a hiccup.

Surely it would affect the demand for dollars internationally though, which would affect our ability to run massive trade deficits year after year. People want dollars to buy oil, therefore they sell us stuff to get dollars. If they can't use dollars to buy oil, will they still sell us stuff to get dollars?

Actually using the dollar for oil trade is not the only source of demand for it. There is also the currency reserve, as I mentioned in the previous comment. However, the question is how much this demand for the dollar affects the US economy. It certainly does have an impact, because it functions like an interest free loan given to the US by the rest of the world. However, its amount is still small in comparison to the US economic output. The US will survive perfectly well without it.

That being said, the dollar is still more reliable than any other currency in the world when it comes to FX reserves. And it will be the case for a long time to come.

Sure, but the point of accumulating it as a reserve is because there will always be demand for it - because that's what you use to buy oil.

To illustrate my point, suppose the only currency you could use to buy oil was the Venezuelan Bolivar. It's incredibly likely that the Bolivar would become a reserve currency based on that fact alone. Without the oil connection, no one would want it.

Well I think we need to look further into this and find out how much of the dollar denominated global trade comes from oil and how much of it comes from other commodities. But I see your point. You propose oil might be the very reason a currency becomes the reserve currency of choice for countries. You may be right.

I mean, there's obviously a lot more to it than that. Faith in the institutions of the country, manufacturing output of the country, etc etc etc - there's a lot that goes into what makes a currency desirable. I just think that ability to buy oil is a fairly important consideration as well.

"If Saudi Arabia wants to recapture its number one ranking, it needs to accept the renminbi for oil payments instead of just the dollar," Gordon Kwan, the Hong Kong-based head of regional oil and gas research

Saudi Arabia will never abandon the dollar.

Don't be so sure of it. This war is involving into a currency war of sorts. US global hegemony is threatened in a world with a multi polar currency giants.

Yet, your budget defecit is at an all time high and uncle sam is increasingly borrowing and printing more money despite not having enough to even pay interest for all the trillions in debt. The rest of the world wonders where you guys are headed and whats gonna happen when the shit hits the fan.

Funny, how when the press and people started going over the diplomatic paper found out that the US is doing what they say they are doing, is largely above board and intelligent about it, and the reports were well written, everyone stopped talking about them.

Yet another reason I would be glad to stop doing it. And yes I'm aware that having the world's reserve currency sort of cancels out our debt, but without all those stupid wars and bases I wouldn't have so much debt. We spent a trillion dollars in Afghanistan + 17 billion in aid fer cryin out loud.

Yeah, taking care of a bunch of under appreciative self-destructive idiots while the neighbors call us pigs, killers, and that we're trampling their rights like a spoiled teenager trying to resist arrest just so they can post it on Youtube.

They would not release the dollar because that would mean we suddenly have a reason to spread freedom in that place. Do not think for a second that the US is peaceful all time. Do you really think that it would stand for a real threat to its status?

Lol them dropping the dollar would mean we kick shale drilling and fracking into full production mode, cracking open the strategic oil reserves, exporting oil into the international market. And placing more sanctions on Russia and letting the Saudis wither on the vine. About the only reason we keep the Saudis around is so that we can drink other people beer before we crack open our own stash.

Update : ok so I honestly didn't even read the article. I made this random comment and thought nothing of it. It is true, I don't know much about this topic of Saudi Oil and its impact on the rest of the world but I'm glad I could get a bit of a conversation going.

I agree fuck Saudi Arabia. It's a shame we consider Saudi Arabia an "ally". They are spreading wahhabist terrorism worldwide and raping and abusing thousands of domestic workers from poorer nations. They get away with all this because we turn a blind eye. Barbaric country, barbaric culture. All they are good at is exporting their terrorism worldwide, raping their domestic workers, oppressing their women and buying off other governments with their dirty oil money.

Hey your edit is a good example why we shouldn't take every top comment so seriously. I've been (sorta) in your position where I said something that people started upvoting. I'm like "yoo.. Don't take me too seriously, I don't actually know what I'm talkin about!"

They are still selling the same amount of oil to China, except they are getting US dollars for their oil. China has forced Russia to sell in rmb, which means they are selling more to China, but getting less in money because of the current economic troubles in the Chinese economy.

Unless Russia becomes jealous of Chinese advances unto the -stans (something that seems very far fetched today), I don't see any other player with interests over the region.

Analysts say the unspoken agreement between Moscow and Beijing appears to be that Russia will cede economic dominance in central Asia to China, but maintain its military and security heft in the region.

How would that affect anything in central asia? Genuinely curious. I just thought that if the US were to pull a wmd type deal in that region, what would be the motivation. China already has a large presence in Africa. A heavy Chinese presence in central Asia would probably see them control a lot of the rare earth metals.

I think /u/Leatra-v2 is responding not only to /u/robz9's mislead perception oil markets but that of many people responding to this thread.

Frankly, I'm pretty surprised myself. It seems like there's this perception that global politics is this match of the US vs. the Saudis and a strike against them is good for us? People in this thread are idiots.

When Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi pulled their countries off the Petro-Dollar they were quickly overthrown. If the Saudi royal family accepted renmindi for payment they would be signing their and their family's death warrant.

The French were afraid about Gaddafi's plan to create a pan-African currency, which would have liberated the former colonies from the French banking hegemony. (Currently, those countries use Francs which are pegged on the euro)

They won't accept payment in renmindi because it isn't a convertible currency. But they will - and do - accept payment in any of the dozens of other currencies that are widely used and freely convertible.

Bingo - I guarantee within weeks of dumping the dollar the US would suddenly "discover" Saudi ties to organized terrorism. The Saudi 'Royal' family will be declared an imminent threat to national security, followed by calls for regime change and democratic reform.

The Saudis aren't stupid - they'll go bankrupt before they dump the dollar, because their survival literally depends on it.

Ehhhhh it was more of British influence with American muscle. The Anglo-Persion Oil Company (now BP) wanted exclusive rights to drill and process oil in (then Persia) Iran, the Iranians didn't like that too much because they would only see 16% of net profits, and pushed back. Then the CIA moved in and overthrew the Iranian president, installing the Shah.

The US wouldn't even need to invade to force a regime change, just signal that they will no longer support the royal family and the place would be a smoldering wreck featuring several waring factions faster than Anderson Cooper could get on the CNN jet to go cover it.

actually, Anderson Cooper would be a part of it. Before it happens, he would suddenly start a media campaign "outing" the Saudi royal family and asking us, "we should intervene to save the oppressed Arabian people there".

Saudi Arabia is the USA's largest arms importer in the Middle East. If you people went to war with them your countries weapon manufacturers will lose one of their top buyers and billions of dollars in money.

If the US has such godlike powers then everything going in the Middle East must be working out in the Americans favour right? Well the last 10 years especially have been terrible for Americas interests in the Middle East so therefore RoundFlakes statement is proven bullshit just from easily observable facts.

This is a bad and dumb post. You are ignoring the real history if you believe this nonsense.

Gaddafi was bombed because he went in front of the UN, agreed to the UN's terms that he should not shell his own people, and made a public announcement that he was going to kill everyone in Benghazi less than 24 hours later. It had nothing to do with trading the dollar for oil, especially when most oil trade is not done with the dollar.

However, thankfully we have access to internet caches and archives, and can access that specific address as it appeared before being conveniently removed. For example, paste that link here http://cachedview.com/ In case people doubt the veracity of the cache, I'm purposely giving them the opportunity to check that address themselves.

For those who can't even be fucked to click the above link, I'll provide an excerpt below:

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French.franc (CFA).

(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy's plans are driven by the following issues:

a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

b. Increase French influence in North Africa,

c. Improve his internal political situation in France,

d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,

e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi's long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa)

We live in a world where the truth can be easily found, but it changes nothing.

The truth is easily found and reinterpreted to make it more convenient. Take your excerpt. Your using it to support that the assumption that helping to overthrow Qaddafi was all about currency. Yet, it doesn't say that all. The memo is saying that there was evidence Qaddafi wanted to remove French influence in Africa. Which another country trying to supplant another using makes the former dislike the latter. That's not new at all or evidence of decisions solely based on currency. In fact the sources are probably French officials who advised a State Department bureaucrat on five issues Sarkozy had that influenced his decision and merely commented about the gold stash as a side note. It's like when the Russians and anti-US critics read the line about "spreading American values" as proof of CIA involvement in plots. It's gleaming what you want from something entirely different. My suggestion is to look at sources, their motivations, and treat them as plain old human beings instead of as a shadowy stereotype.

Even if that is an e-mail to Hillary Clinton that does not mean it contains the "truth" but merely reasonable speculation.

Interestingly, Sarkozy was linked to Gaddafi by Gaddafi's large contributions to his election campaign. If Sarkozy would have stood by Gaddafi and Gaddafi would have successfully butchered the rebels, Sarkozy's image in France would have been tainted forever and his political career would have been over.

It's the reserve currency because it's the most stable currency on the planet. The price of oil is collapsing, trade in oil in non dollars is at an all time high, yet the value of the dollar vs other currencies is at an all time high. Proof is in the pudding.

One of the many conspiracy theories about the Iraq war is that the US could not tolerate Saddam Hussein’s decision to designate his oil sales in euros, not dollars. To prevent other OPEC countries from also selling oil in euros, say the conspiracy theorists, the US invaded Iraq and ensured the hegemony of the dollar.

Rubbish. The US does not ask countries to trade in dollars. And for over a decade, it has let the dollar float up and down at will. The dollar has fallen over 15 per cent against the euro in the last year, but Washington does not care. There is no conspiracy here to keep the dollar supreme.

When then do most corporations and countries conduct trade in dollars unasked? To mitigate risks arising from currency fluctuations. Safety lies in conducting all international transactions in one currency rather than many. If you trade in dollars, borrow in euros, and keep foreign exchange reserves in yen, you run several risks. If the yen falls against the dollar, your forex reserves will decline even as your imports rise. If the euro rises against the dollar and yen, your debts will increase even as your exports and foreign exchange reserves fall.

Countries and companies are both risk averse. Avoiding currency risk means keeping most foreign transactions in one currency. And the safest currency is the dollar.

Why the dollar rather than the euro or yen? History provides the answer. In the heyday of British colonialism, the pound sterling was dominant. But World War II shattered all economies other than the US. At the end of that war, the only convertible currency in the world was the dollar. Ever since, global confidence has remained highest in the dollar.

Economic resurgence in Europe and Japan after the 1950s gradually increased confidence in their currencies. Indeed, the yen doubled against the dollar in the 1980s. Yet to bankers with a long view, the US dollar always looked the safest haven, and they flocked to it in crises. Good US economic performance in the 1990s heightened that confidence. Besides, the US markets for bonds and equities are by far the biggest and inspire the most confidence. By contrast, the Japanese and German capital markets are thin and risky.

All countries keep foreign exchange reserves as a safety cushion. Since the dollar represents safety, most global reserves of countries are held in dollars.

Forex reserves help finance imports. If your reserves are in dollars, you should import in dollars too, to reduce currency risk. So, dollar dominance in reserves translates into dollar dominance for designating imports.

But once you designate imports in dollars, you should designate exports in dollars too. If a company imports raw material in dollars and exports in euros, a rise of the dollar could lead to losses.

In sum, rational folk prefer to conduct most international transactions in a single currency as a form of self-insurance. This explains why OPEC (or for that matter India) trades mainly in dollars. The US is the biggest consumer of oil. OPEC countries keep their reserves in dollars. Many of their imports are dollar-designated. It is rational for them to sell oil in the same currency in which they buy goods and hold reserves.

Saddam Hussein designated his oil exports in euros as a political gimmick, lacking economic significance. It was like Nepal’s gimmick of creating a time zone 15 minutes different from Indian Standard Time. No other country in the world has such a tiny difference in time. But Nepal wanted to show its independence from Indian dominance, just as Saddam wanted to from US dominance.

No other OPEC country prices oil in euros, because of the currency risk. But for arguments sake, suppose they do. Will the US suffer? Not really. More countries will want to hold reserves in euros to reduce their currency risk, and rising demand could push up the euro against the dollar. That will make Europe more attractive for foreign investors. But European exporters will complain that a strong euro has made them uncompetitive, hitting production and employment. American exporters meanwhile will be delighted that a weaker dollar has made them more competitive. So a strong dollar or a strong euro is a mixed blessing for the countries concerned. It helps attract foreign investment but also damages exports, production and employment. That is why the US and Europe leave it to markets to decide the exchange rate.

The fact that most world trade is designated in dollars does not make the US strong. Rather, the strength of the US economy leads people to designate trade in dollars. The very humdrum aim is to reduce risks of currency fluctuations. No conspiracy theory is needed to explain this.

Oil hasn't been tied to the dollar for years. The fact that countries buy oil in dollars has to do with the stability of the dollar, not some old agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia. And the fact that people think the US will go to war because of what currency oil is traded in is laughable.

Have you ever read any actual estimate of just how much value oil trade in dollars adds to the US economy? Without knowing this you really can't argue that it is so critical to the US economy that they will go to war to defend it.

Actually the Russians are selling the oil cheaper than the Saudis if they are taking the Renminbi instead of dollars. The Renminbi has been falling in relation to the dollar, currently worth around .15, and so you are getting a currency worth less every day.

You sell the oil at a worth of 30 dollars a barrel in Renminbi it may only be 28 dollars tomorrow.

Well guess what, the Chinese people in charge right now are smarter than you, and at the very least, they have more responsibility and information over the choices they make. You would agree with that, no? There is also an issue of capability, if Russia can't produce more oil, they can't sell it. And as it is, they are selling at a loss.

That's the point. It is a simple concept that people can understand and therefore accept because it makes them feel smart. Problem is it's a conspiracy theory and any truth it might have had historically isn't important now.

A solid move. Also considering US's pushing of TPP against all critics (the whole process is not democratic and transparent at all) and China's 'One Belt One Way' Initiative, it's obvious that US and China are beginning to distance each other. China's solution is to shift from Oceanic economy back to Continental economy. High-speed railroads and nuclear power will be the engine of the new economic mode. There's huge potential in China's domestic market and trade with countries in Continental Eurasia.

Saudis can pump at a profit when selling at $10 a barrel. Some of the others such as Bahrain and UAE and Kuwait can sell near there. Other suppliers such as Russia and Iran cannot. Once enough US producers shut down the price will be kept low until the eastern competitors of Saudi stop producing because they are losing money. Then the price will start to climb to a price determined by SAUDI . (not OPEC) This price will be determined so as to keep large producers out of the market and to allow Saudi to sell its oil because it has more market share. Saudi looked into the future and determined that it was being squeezed out of the market by losing market share. It also saw that oil demand in the future would be lower. Therefore it set about to reclaim market share by bankrupting the competitors to regain share and to keep their business running as long as it can. When it allows others to regain share and start producing at a profit, the demand should be much lower and their oil should be depleted.

Saudi has realised that other forms of energy have developed pretty quickly and in a few decades they could end up with loads of oil that they can no longer sell at a profit due to severe reduction in demand. This is why they're maximising production now so they don't end up in that situation.

If they're smart they would diversify the economy away from oil like UAE has done (70% of their GDP is now non-oil). I haven't done enough research to know whether they're actually doing this, they've been claiming to and have invested a lot in higher education but their reforms are far from UAE's level yet.

True, But private companies in Texas for example only have to catch a cow to put its horns on the front of the caddy. They do not have to run a country. Saudi production cost excluding administering a country is about 10 bucks. to drill/pump/ship the oil.

"Chess like thought process" lol. Saudi is far more at risk, I'll grant that. But if you think that Russia is anything but a short-sighted kleptocracy, you're not paying attention. Repressive regimes are always at risk.

Saudi's prosperity doesn't have anything to do with their decisions, what I mean by this is that you can't compare it to chess, the game is completely rigged in favor of the Saudis and US dollar by design. If they only sell oil in the US dollar they will remain in power. The saudi's are the ones who have ratcheted up production to drive the price down and hurt both Iran and Russia and domestic oil companies in Europe and US trying to frack. Saudi's will use the oil prices as leverage to finish up Syria and when Syria is done oil prices will be back at $80 a barrel.

I'm no fan of the Saudi's but this has HUGE implications on the US petrodollar and the overall security of the world at large. I get people relishing the fact it hurts Saudi Arabia but what they're not seeing is the overall geopolitical and economic ramifications of a collapsed petrodollar.

In short, the US will go to war to defend it. Period. Look no further than 2014 and the establishment of the BRICS economic deal. That was a direct front to the hegemonic power of the US dollar and it's global reserve currency status. Don't expect the US to idly stand by and watch as it's economic might and fiat house of cards is challenged.

War. They will take us to war. See Ukraine 2014. See Libya and Gaddafi with their gold backed Dinar which they planned on using for the buying and selling of oil - as opposed to the US dollar. Syria and Assad.....

Great question. The answer? Any country they deem a threat to maintaining their status as the worlds reserve currency. Any nation that wants to disrupt the apple cart and take away the windfall gains that result from the US owning the Petrodollar status. The smallest and most recent example is Libya. As mentioned in my post above, Gidaffi set forth to establish his own gold backed currency, void of the globalized central banking cartels, that would supplant the US dollar as the currency used to buy and sell oil in his nation. Shortly after there was a coup, he was killed and Hillary Clinton was on Youtube saying; "we came, we saw, he died!! cackle cackle cackle (Youtube Hillary + Gidaffi) It's sick. Once Gadaffi was taken out his nations massive gold reserves "disappeared" and his oil was put back on the market for the US dollar and ONLY the US dollar.

Second recent example, Iraq and Sadam Hussein. Hussein - months prior to the US invasion in 2003 - was given permission to sell Iraq oil on the international market using the EURO. Big mistake. Don't challenge the US petrodollar. Fast forward several false and misleading accusations (yellow cake uranium, weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was involved in 9-11 etc) and the US invaded, killed Saddam (a piece of shit - yes), installed our own puppet government and then put their oil back on the international market using exclusively the US dollar. Don't mess with the petrodollar unless you want war.

When the BRICS deal was signed in 2014, part of that deal was to start using a currency separate from the US dollar for the buying and selling of oil - that was a shot across the bow to D.C. Almost immediately after we had a Cold War like tensions with Russia via a proxy - Ukraine. That was no coincidence. The coup that took part in that nation was backed and funded by the US. Don't mess with the petrodollar.

The moral is that we've a bunch of sociopaths in charge who are hell-bent on keeping their top dog economic status. The US economy is massively dependent on the Petrodollar and being the world reserve currency. When one or both of those go, so goes this economy. D.C knows it. So if China, Russia, Libya, Iraq etc. wish to challenge that status then they're backing the bully into a corner and the bully is going to fight and fight whomever and whatever to get out. Russia? China? God forbid. But none of it would surprise me.

(headed to a Super Bowl party -- Team America! YA! -- so was quick to write this....)

You and everyone else who agree with this and think it will lead to war are probably the same crowd that shouted "WWIII WWIII!!!!" When turkey shot down the Russian jet. Or any time NK tests a missile. This is not going to start a war. And your examples you cited are reaching quite far and are conspiracy theories at best. There's significantly more behind what happened in Ukraine than what you cite. It's not even a proxy war by a long shot.

War. They will take us to war. See Ukraine 2014. See Libya and Gaddafi with their gold backed Dinar which they planned on using for the buying and selling of oil - as opposed to the US dollar. Syria and Assad.....

US has been behind a campaign to create turmoil in Ukraine since 2004 according to The Guardian.

…while the gains of the orange-bedecked “chestnut revolution” are Ukraine’s, the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.

Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box.

Richard Miles, the US ambassador in Belgrade, played a key role. And by last year, as US ambassador in Tbilisi, he repeated the trick in Georgia, coaching Mikhail Saakashvili in how to bring down Eduard Shevardnadze.

Ten months after the success in Belgrade, the US ambassador in Minsk, Michael Kozak, a veteran of similar operations in central America, notably in Nicaragua, organised a near identical campaign to try to defeat the Belarus hardman, Alexander Lukashenko.

US neocons also had plenty of help from the media in whitewashing the backing of rightwing extremists in Ukraine.

US State Dept representative Victoria Nuland pimping out Ukraine to the IMF, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Ukrainian oligarchs, and also talking about how the US has spent 5 Billion dollars to destabilize the country since 1991:

"We can certainly help our friends and partners debunk lies, get the straight story out. So we have redirected a great amount of public diplomacy funds to mounting our own truth telling campaign."

-Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland, April 2014

Very important to note that Victoria Nuland's husband is Robert Kagan (see the following for more details: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/kagan_robert), a rightwing extremist who works for the Neoconservative Brookings Institute. Whose father is Donald Kagan another warmongering rightwing extremist and PNAC signatory. And whose brother is Fredrick Kagan who works for the Neocon foreign policy analyst group the Institute for the Study of War (the organization who sponsored the Syrian analyst, Elizabeth O'bagy (who lied about her credentials and now works for John McCain, the US Rightwing Senator who praises Qatar and Saudis for supporting Jihadists).

As far as Russia's role in Ukraine...

Another point to consider is the humanitarian crisis in Eastern Ukraine created by the Ukrainian military indiscriminately shelling and bombing civilians. There are over a million refugees fleeing away from the Ukrainian military and into Russia. Russia is the only country offering aid, asylum, and protection for these people, but the US and NATO has shown no interest because these people identify ethnically as Russians, so they are margianalized and ignored.

Also, considering just logistics and the nature of the ethnicity of the refugees, Russia is the best country to handle the refugee crisis.

To put things in perspective, just considering recent events of the past year, Russia has done far more good in Ukraine than harm. That's not saying things can't be done better, but any sane person would support the actions of Russia, Crimea, and the Eastern Ukrainian separatists over those of the US and Kiev.

So what is the rest of Europe or the US doing to help?

Alarmed at the anti-Russian hysteria sweeping Official Washington – and the specter of a new Cold War – U.S. intelligence veterans took the unusual step of sending this Aug. 30 memo to German Chancellor Merkel challenging the reliability of Ukrainian and U.S. media claims about a Russian “invasion.”

Crimea was an independent and autonomous country adjoined to Ukraine and the majority of Crimeans support their government and joining Russia.

What has transpired has been a result of the will of the Crimean and Eastern Ukrainian people, for better and worse. And their actions have merely been a reaction to the US destabilizing their country and creating a situation of chaos and crisis in order to profit. In those circumstances a lot of mistakes and lapse in judgements will most certainly be made, but any group of people should be entitled to the right of self-determination.

"With over half the votes counted, 95.5 percent had chosen the option of annexation by Moscow, the head of the referendum commission, Mikhail Malyshev, said two hours after polls closed. Turnout was 83 percent, he added - a high figure given that many who opposed the move had said they would boycott the vote."

"In a press conference last Tuesday Sergei Aksyonov, who was named Prime Minister last week, said the new government in Kiev was illegal and “mad”.

When asked about the legality of his position, Mr. Aksenov said he had been voted prime minister by Crimean members of parliament. He said the government in Kiev came to power much the same way."

For us Americans you'd have to be a freedom hating hypocrite to oppose the Crimean people's right to self determination, as their decision to be annexed by Russia had the support of more of their population (85%) than our own revolution for independence (30%).

Note the response by Putin in an interview segment when a journalist asks him about Crimean annexation:

Journalist to Putin:

First, Mr President, do you believe that the actions of Russia in Ukraine and Crimea over the past months were a reaction to rules being broken and are an example of state management without rules?

Putin's response:

The second point has to do with our actions in Crimea. I have spoken about this on numerous occasions, but if necessary, I can repeat it. This is Part 2 of Article 1 of the United Nations’ Charter – the right of nations to self-determination. It has all been written down, and not simply as the right to self-determination, but as the goal of the united nations. Read the article carefully.

I do not understand why people living in Crimea do not have this right, just like the people living in, say, Kosovo. This was also mentioned here. Why is it that in one case white is white, while in another the same is called black? We will never agree with this nonsense. That is one thing.

The other very important thing is something nobody mentions, so I would like to draw attention to it. What happened in Crimea? First, there was this anti-state overthrow in Kiev. Whatever anyone may say, I find this obvious – there was an armed seizure of power.

In many parts of the world, people welcomed this, not realising what this could lead to, while in some regions people were frightened that power was seized by extremists, by nationalists and right-wingers including neo-Nazis. People feared for their future and for their families and reacted accordingly. In Crimea, people held a referendum.

I would like to draw your attention to this. It was not by chance that we in Russia stated that there was a referendum. The decision to hold the referendum was made by the legitimate authority of Crimea – its Parliament, elected a few years ago under Ukrainian law prior to all these grave events. This legitimate body of authority declared a referendum, and then based on its results, they adopted a declaration of independence, just as Kosovo did, and turned to the Russian Federation with a request to accept Crimea into the Russian state.

You know, whatever anyone may say and no matter how hard they try to dig something up, this would be very difficult, considering the language of the United Nations court ruling, which clearly states (as applied to the Kosovo precedent) that the decision on self-determination does not require the approval of the supreme authority of a country.

So why hasn't the UN ruled yet that Crimea has no right to self-determination?

Crimea has had a history since the independence of Ukraine from the USSR of wanting independence. It would not be a surprise that a referendum would result in a majority support to be annexed by Russia, since most of the people there are ethnic Russians that resent Ukraine.

Every time I hear ukrainian version it makes me yawn. Always same shit: "agression", "invasion", "Putin" blah blah blah. Must be convinient to do armed coup, put incompetent imbeciles instead of former president and when everything goes to hell to blame Russia

People who can provide real opinion on the matter often have no time to compile links and tell a good story. The guy who he's replying to obviously (at least for me) doesnt know shit about story he's telling. His combination of links and sources are just bunch of repeated crap compiled to look "solid" with no intention to provide real facts. Basically every paragraph is a lie which can be exposed by anyone who can spend some time researching into related issues from sources other then RT or sputniknews.

For example:

Another point to consider is the humanitarian crisis in Eastern Ukraine created by the Ukrainian military indiscriminately shelling and bombing civilians. There are over a million refugees fleeing away from the Ukrainian military and into Russia. Russia is the only country offering aid, asylum, and protection for these people, but the US and NATO has shown no interest because these people identify ethnically as Russians, so they are margianalized and ignored.

On another hand there are no evidence of ukrainian forces doing something like that intentionally or unintentionally on that scale (which is possible, because conflict grounds are heavily populated areas). Moreover, all scandalous media reports of atrocities supposedly done by ukrainian forces are proven to be made up by russian media. Here is a top100 list of such things.

Million ukrainian refugees to Russia is a myth debunked multiple times. Even in his links numbers are very different and named questionable by the sources themselves. As only source of data about this, russian officials dont even try to cover it properly. For example this and this tweets from russian foreign affairs are 20 minutes appart.

Another thing is harder to show, but most of people aren't living on the frontline and fleeing from falling shells. They flee because of heavy criminal activity (all newer-then-20-year-old cars are stolen, businesses are raided, former thugs and junkies now have assault rifles and tanks and institutionalize law how they see it fit), no work (most of mines are closed or forced to slave-labour, all factories are cut for scrap and sold, etc), no money, no food (even supplies from famous russian "humanitarian aid convoys" are sold through captured and renamed store chain), etc. Basically they flee from the effect of structured society occupied by thugs with heavy weaponry and complete control over territory and population.

Everything else is similar crap. Amount of links and "sources" doesnt relate to truthfulness in any way these times. Modern technologies gave us ability to generate bullshit in absurd amounts and rapidly spread it everywhere.

Definitive statements regarding the intentions of the world's superpowers made by people who have no involvement in discussions of said intentions, nor the planning meetings where actions based on their intentions are set out.

Source: someone who likes reading articles written by people who have some expertise in the field, and is very bored of reading half baked ill informed opinions thrown around as fact.